A proposal to use cameras on Cumberland County school buses to catch motorists passing stopped buses could bring the county $3.5 million in first-year fine revenue, based on projections from the company pitching the program.
But commissioners are divided over how the program would operate, whether drivers would be treated fairly, and where the money would go.
The Cumberland County Board of Commissioners discussed the proposed three-year agreement during an October 15 meeting, five months after Massachusetts-based technology company Sitestream first presented the initiative as a way to improve student safety without requiring an upfront county investment.
Under the proposal, cameras would capture motorists who pass stopped school buses, allowing the county to issue civil citations ranging from $400 to $1,000.
While some commissioners argued the technology could help prevent dangerous driving and provide law enforcement with another enforcement tool, others questioned whether the program would reduce money available to public schools and disproportionately affect motorists with North Carolina vehicle registrations.
Commissioners unanimously agreed to revisit the proposal during their November 12 meeting, with a public hearing scheduled for November 16.
How Would School Bus Cameras Work?
Andrew Noble, president and founder of Massachusetts-based Sitestream, introduced the initiative during a commissioners’ meeting on May 14, outlining a system designed to automatically capture vehicles passing stopped school buses while their stop arms are extended and flashing red lights are activated.
Cumberland County Schools operates a fleet of 482 buses, according to a September statement from Superintendent Eric Bracy. The district already uses cameras and GPS technology on its buses, but Sitestream’s proposal would upgrade existing equipment and add technology to automatically capture and process potential stop-arm violations.
Under the proposed program, cameras would record video and license plate information when a vehicle illegally passes a stopped school bus. The footage would then be transmitted electronically to Sitestream, where employees would review it and retrieve vehicle registration information.
“A member of our team looks to make sure it’s a real violation,” Noble told commissioners, explaining that employees would verify whether the bus was stopped, its stop arm was extended, and its warning lights were flashing.
Potential violations would then be forwarded to law enforcement for approval before citations could be issued.
“They look at the video, they make sure it’s a make and model match and they say yes, send the ticket or no, don’t send the ticket,” Noble said, describing the review process.
He estimated that the review process could take about 35 to 45 seconds for each violation.
Approved citations would be mailed to registered vehicle owners, who could review the footage online, pay the penalty, identify another person responsible for the violation, or contest the citation. The proposed upgrades would also change how the district accesses footage from its existing bus cameras.
During the October 15 meeting, Sitestream Regional Sales Manager Brad Dreasher said that when an incident occurs on a school bus, district employees currently must wait until the bus returns to a transportation facility, remove its digital video recorder, and download the footage.
“With this technology upgrade, it’ll all be cellular,” Dreasher said, adding that school officials would be able to access footage “in real time.”
The proposed contract requires footage to be available for Sitestream to retrieve within four hours after a bus returns from its routes.
Year 1: 23,600 Citations Projected
During the May presentation, Sitestream estimated the program could generate approximately 23,600 citations during its first year. The company’s presentation projected a 75% payment rate during the opening six months and approximately 14,000 citations in the second year as motorists became more aware of the cameras.
Noble told commissioners the company estimated approximately 100 to 150 violations per day in Cumberland County. The company did not explain how it reached those estimates.
Board Chair Kirk deViere questioned how much money the county could receive from the program.
“You showed us the citation, but you didn’t show us the total dollar amount that could come back to us,” deViere said.
The proposed contract calls for a split of the revenue, with Sitestream receiving the greater of $200 or half of each fine.
Based on Sitestream’s projections, the county could receive approximately $3.54 million in the first year if every paid citation carried the $400 first-offense penalty and the projected 75% payment rate continued throughout the year.
The estimate does not account for higher penalties for repeat offenses, which would increase the county’s share of each paid citation. Actual revenue would depend on the number of citations issued, their penalty amounts, and how many motorists pay them.
Noble said the company would collect payments in a dedicated account and transfer the county’s share approximately every two weeks.
The proposed agreement also includes an early termination provision requiring the county to give 180 days’ notice and pay Sitestream $300 per equipped bus for each month remaining in the initial contract term if it terminates the agreement for convenience.
‘You Can’t Put a Price on The Life of a Child’
Commissioner Glenn Adams raised concerns about whether the program could reduce money that would otherwise benefit public schools and questioned whether cameras would prevent motorists from passing stopped buses.
“I don’t necessarily think that cameras are going to stop people from running through that—we just catch them,” Adams said.
Under North Carolina law, illegally passing a stopped school bus is a misdemeanor punishable by a minimum $500 fine. The North Carolina Constitution generally requires proceeds from criminal fines, after allowable collection costs, to support public schools.
Adams questioned whether the proposed civil enforcement program would divert money that otherwise could benefit public schools. Under the proposal, the county would receive $200 from each paid $400 first-offense citation, with the remaining $200 going to Sitestream.
“I’m not in favor of the school system losing $300 on each one of these incidents,” Adams said. “So I would not be in favor of this.”
However, the $500 minimum fine Adams referenced applies to criminal violations under state law, while the proposed camera program would issue separate civil penalties beginning at $400.
Whether the program would actually reduce money available to schools remains unresolved. The proposed cameras could capture violations that otherwise would not result in fines, and questions remain about how state law governs the distribution of civil penalty revenue.
Dreasher explained that the camera program would use a civil enforcement process rather than criminal charges. Under the existing criminal process, Dreasher said, school bus drivers must document suspected violations, and law enforcement must identify the person driving before pursuing charges.
The proposed civil process would allow citations to be issued to registered vehicle owners based on recorded evidence, subject to law enforcement review.
However, Dreasher said law enforcement could still pursue criminal charges for particularly dangerous violations, such as passing a stopped school bus on the right while children are getting off or crossing a double yellow line to pass on the left.
“The Sheriff’s Office will have the opportunity to make any of them criminal if they see something—egregious,” Dreasher said.
Adams questioned whether holding vehicle owners responsible without first identifying the driver would be fair.
“That doesn’t seem quite fair,” Adams said. “I mean that’s why we have the statute that you have to show who is driving the vehicle as opposed to just hitting somebody’s tag and doing it that way.”
Adams also raised concerns about how the county would enforce unpaid citations against motorists with North Carolina registrations compared with those whose vehicles are registered in other states.
Dreasher explained that motorists with North Carolina-registered vehicles who fail to pay could face a hold on their vehicle registrations through the state Division of Motor Vehicles. For vehicles registered outside North Carolina, he said, the company would pursue unpaid fines through third-party collections.
Adams questioned whether that distinction would disproportionately affect local residents, particularly in a military community where many motorists maintain out-of-state registrations.
“So local people are going to get punished while out of state people just keep driving,” Adams said.
Commissioner Veronica Jones echoed those concerns, noting that Cumberland County’s large military population includes service members who maintain vehicle registrations outside North Carolina.
“There’s not a fair way to balance that,” Jones said. “I have a lot of those same concerns, so with that being said, I can’t be in favor of this.”
Jones also questioned whether the program was appropriate for Cumberland County, citing a lack of data about the extent of illegal school bus passing.
“I’m not so sure it’s a good fit for our community,” Jones said.
She suggested Sitestream present its proposal directly to the Cumberland County Board of Education, arguing that school board members would be better positioned to evaluate concerns from students, parents, and bus drivers.
County Manager Clarence Grier told commissioners he had discussed the initiative with Bracy and indicated that the school system was receptive to the proposal.
Commissioner Henry Tyson said the school board had already reviewed the initiative and asked that it submit a formal resolution of support.
Tyson also argued that the technology could help law enforcement identify dangerous driving around school buses while providing another enforcement tool for a Sheriff’s Office facing staffing challenges.
“If we have folks that are passing the stop school bus, they need to be held accountable,” Tyson said. “I don’t think we can sit here and put dollars and cents on children’s lives.”
Commissioner Jimmy Faircloth also supported further consideration, suggesting the cameras could identify violations that currently go undetected.
“I just don’t see how this can be a negative because if it’s going to produce more incidents or at least catch more incidents, then it’s probably picking up a lot of stuff that’s not being caught,” Faircloth said.
Faircloth also acknowledged that commissioners had not yet received data about the extent of motorists passing stopped school buses.
County Creates Ordinance to Ticket Motorists
The county developed a five-page ordinance outlining the program, including penalties for violations, payment requirements, and procedures for contesting citations. The ordinance said state law allows counties to develop civil penalties, instead of criminal ones, for passing a stopped school bus—and it’s needed to allow the Sitestream program.
Despite commissioners’ interest in the program, Moorefield warned that the proposed ordinance could not move forward as written, citing unresolved questions about how the county would administer the program and whether its financial arrangement complies with state law.
“The ordinance you have in your package will not work,” Moorefield told commissioners.
Under the proposed ordinance, first-time violations carry a $400 penalty, with subsequent offenses increasing to $750 for a second violation and $1,000 for additional violations. The civil citations would not result in driver’s license or insurance points.
Citations would have to reach vehicle owners within 30 days of a violation and include photographic evidence, details about the alleged offense, and a statement from a law enforcement officer affirming the violation.
Motorists would have 30 days after receiving a citation to pay or contest it. Those who fail to do either would face an additional $100 late penalty, and unpaid penalties could prevent vehicle registration renewal.
The ordinance would also require the county to establish an administrative appeals board to hear challenges from motorists. Vehicle owners could contest citations by submitting a written request and supporting affidavit, including evidence that another person was operating the vehicle or that the vehicle had been stolen. Decisions by the appeals board could be challenged in court.
The proposed civil enforcement process would not apply to violations resulting in injury or death. But Moorefield emphasized that implementing the program would create responsibilities for county government, not the school district.
“This will be a county ordinance and a county program, not a school board program,” Moorefield said.
He said those responsibilities would include establishing the appeals process and providing an office motorists could contact.
Moorefield also raised questions about whether the ordinance could apply within Cumberland County’s municipalities, noting that the state statute authorizing the program did not clearly address jurisdictional issues.
Another central concern involved whether state law allows the county to compensate Sitestream using revenue collected from civil penalties, as outlined in the proposed agreement.
Although the draft ordinance established the penalties, it does not specify how the revenue would be divided between Sitestream and the county. That arrangement appears in the company’s separate proposed contract.
Moorefield explained that some other automated traffic enforcement programs have been authorized through local legislation specifically addressing payments to private vendors. However, he had not identified comparable language in the state statute governing county-operated school bus camera programs.
“So there’s some questions I have about this,” Moorefield said. “This is a complex statute—it’s going to take some time to get through.”
